LexN.T.P.C. & ORS versus BADRI SINGH THAKUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11S.C.R.1179 N.T.P.C. & ORS. A v. SADRI SINGH THAKUR & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5494-5505 of 2005) AUGUST 11, 2008 B ~ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 254 - Abolition of contract labour - Absorption of workmen - Respondents employed c through contractor as workman under the Corporation - Writ petition by respondents claiming absorption - Case of respon- dents that the 1960 Act applicable to Corporation, thus, en- titled to same wages as workman of Corporation and contract labour to be abolished on regular basis - Set aside by High D Court holding that the 1970 Act was applicable; that they be- "" ing the contract labours were not employees of Corporation; and that no Notification was issued to abolish thf;J contract _labour - However, order of Single Judge of High Court set aside by Division Bench- On appeal, held: Order of Division E Bench of High Court not sustainable - Single Judge correctly analysed the position in law - In terms of proviso to Article 254, legislative power of Parliament has been enlarged in the sense that it can add to, amend, vary or repeal the law made by legislature of State - MP Industrial Relation Act, 1960. F It is the case of the respondents that they were em- ployed through the contractor and were working as elec- tricians under the appellant No.1-Corporation. Respon- dents filed writ petition seeking their absorption as work- men of the Corporation as they are contract labours. They G contended that they worked for the colonies owned and controlled by the Corporation and officers of the Corpo- -), ration supervised their work; that the Corporation entered into series of contracts with the contractor; that the Cor- 1179 H 1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A poration engaged the respondents on job work basis to avoid absorption of contract labour; and that the provi- sions of M.P. Industrial Relation Act, 1960 are applicable to the Corporation and as such were entitled to the same wages as the workmen of the Corporation and there could B . be abolition of contract labour on regular basis. Appel- lant-Corporation contended that it is a registered estab- lishment u/s 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970; that the contractor employed the re- spondents; that there was no relationship of master and c servant between the Corporation and the respondents; that once legislation is passed by the Parliament in re- spect of any field covered under the Concurrent List, the same would have preference over the Sta.te law; and that the 1970 Act was applicable. The Single Judge of High 0 Court held that relationship of employer and employee is not established; that the 1970 Act is applicable to the writ petitioners, thus, respondents could not rely on the pro- visions of 1960 Act for enforcing their claim; that they being the contract labours are not employees of the Cor- poration; that there was no Notification issued by the ap- E propriate· government abolishing the contract labour; that there was no scope for granting any relief; and that the decision in Air India Statutory Corporation case did riot ap- ply to the facts of the case. F Respondents filed Letters Patent Appeal. Appellants contended that the respondents could not claim to· be employees of the principal employers and their absorp- tion did not arise in view of Steel Authority of India Ltd. case which inter-alia over-ruled the earlier decision in Air India's G case. The Division Bench of High Court held that the ob- ject of the Act was to regulate the employment of the con- tract labour in certain establishments and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and the ·matters con- nected therewith; that though there was an over-riding H effect yet the beneficial provision of the statute was not N.T.P.C. & ORS. v. SADRI SINGH 1181 THAKUR & ORS. extinguished; that once Notification is issued u/s. 10 of A the Act the matter would be different and the decision ren- dered by this Court in Steel Authority's case would be ap- plicable in full force; that in the absence of Notification the other general relevant law would be applicable; that ., with reference to various provisions of 1960 Act, the view B of Single Judge of High Court was not correct. Hence, the present appeal. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Clause
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.